Lodger lied during application, outcome on page 29...!

saajan_12 · 31 January 2022 at 1:14PM

Ignoring some of the nonsense on illegal CRB checks - the lodger gave their consent, just like many others do for jobs, volunteering, etc so there's no gross pressure here. However I do think you should respond to the LBA - the lodger's claims can mostly be defended, but its not a slam dunk and if the judge finds at all in their favour, then responding before court protects you from court costs if they unreasonably escalate it instead of discussing mutually.

themastergoose said:

Ok, so he's not intending to leave quietly in a sense. His mum hand delivered a "Letter before action" this afternoon, as he intends to take me thru the small claims court for breach of contract and misrepresentation. She personally stated that I'm "purely driven by greed and not fit to be a landlord". - ignore, inflammatory

So, the grounds of his case are as follows:
Signed a 6 month minimum agreement that the landlord ended without appropriate notice being given. I was left homeless without notice. - this is debatable.
They had no tenancy protections, but just a simple contract should be followed with claims for damages unless there's a *material* breach. So
a) was the passing the criminal check part of the written agreement or just verbal? Did it specify what constituted a 'pass' eg no criminal history, nothing less than x years old etc? If not part of the agreement, then that's not really a breach (although you could have used it as a basis to not let at all before starting).
b) Potential argument for mutual termination of the contract as he left and you returned deposit + x days of rent. Would depend on the discussions around this.
Landlord failed to place the deposit in a recognised protection scheme as required by law. - nonsense, not required as he was a lodger, not a tenant.
The property was marketed as all inclusive, but the landlord in fact has lot's of exclusions and hidden extra costs not disclosed originally. Not exhaustive, but there's no basic consumable's and toiletries provided, no cleaning provisions and landlord wants to charge an additional £50 monthly for a towel and laundry service if I want it. The cost is manifestly expensive, possibly exploitive - and should be included as per the original advert. - The question is really what could 'all inclusive' reasonably be interpreted to mean = for a lodging situation, not a hotel, I'd say that's all utility bills, TV, possibly cleaning, toilet paper, use of a hoover, pots, pans. I'd think towels, laundry, other toiletries and food would be more akin to a hotel. However this is a question of interpretation. If the contract was ambiguous, then that's usually interpreted in favour of the person who didn't draft it, but there's also a degree of what one would reasonably interpret.
He's seeking 5 months and 1 week rent as compensation for breaking the contract early. A further 3x his deposit amount for not using an approved scheme, and lastly £37 for a towel bundle and laundry detergent he had to supply "because I refused".

Total value of the claim is £4563 that he's asking for within 14 days, otherwise he's filing the claim and will add a further £205 filing fee and accrue interest on the balance being sought at £1 daily for each day after the filing, until a settlement is reached. - court costs are reasonable, hence reply briefly to the LBA to avoid this.

My first reaction is to tell him to **** off as the basis for the eviction was because he lied to secure the property in the first place. He was given notice also, 1 weeks notice as he pays rent weekly. He left early of his own choosing. - sounds reasonable if he did materially breach the contract (see point 1 above). If not, then you'd have to give notice in line with the contract ie adhere to the min term, and just sue for damages from minor breaches.

His deposit and the 2 unused days were refunded via bank transfer on the Wednesday 26/01/22. - what was discussed around this? Potentially a mutual early termination?

So - Now what do I do?

1) Eviction: It was perfectly fine to do checks to which the lodger consented. The question is whether 'failing' those checks was well defined in the agreement and hence a material breach. Please quote.
Yes-> Fine to give 1 week notice, and then evict.
No-> Then once he had moved in, its too late and you have to go by the contract. If he breached other minor terms, then you can claim monetary amounts but not tear up the whole agreement.
If you did prematurely evict him, then as a lodger that's a civil claim for actual damages (still not an 'illegal eviction' in the criminal sense). eg if he has receipts for emergency movers, last min accommodation, overlap in rent, missed day's work etc. Not an arbitrary x months rent in compensation.

Also, what exactly was discussed around his move out / return of 2 days rent? Could that be construed as a mutually agreed early termination?

2) Deposit Protection: He wasn't a tenant, so not applicable. Deposit returned in full.

3) All inclusive: please quote the contract here. Its debatable what that would reasonably include. His claim if any would be for actual costs of items he had to buy which he thinks you should have provided, not an arbitrary fee.

4) Court costs: While there is a reasonable argument for £0 owed, this is not iron clad as above, and court can be unpredictable. If the judge finds the lodger's claim has merit and you ignored attempts to resolve before court, then more likely to award courts costs against you, vs if you responded to an LBA but the lodger prematurely went to court. So personally I would respond briefly.

Chris_English · 31 January 2022 at 1:32PM

Dear Mr X's mother.

Your son, the habitual criminal, lied about his criminal pst to try to cheat his way into my house, knowing that this would give him access to a woman's home that he woudl never be able to get if you had brought him up to be honest.

Clearly in your family this is viewed as normal, but you ought to know that in normal families violent criminals don't have their mothers trying to find them access to their next victim. Because of your actions the police will now be informed that both you and he are actively trying to gain entry into people's houses dishonestly. If I hear from you again I will also contact the local paper to try to make sure that anyone else that he tries to cheat like this knows what you are up to."

Reginald74 · 31 January 2022 at 1:44PM

Chris_English said:

Dear Mr X's mother.

Your son, the habitual criminal, lied about his criminal pst to try to cheat his way into my house, knowing that this would give him access to a woman's home that he woudl never be able to get if you had brought him up to be honest.

Clearly in your family this is viewed as normal, but you ought to know that in normal families violent criminals don't have their mothers trying to find them access to their next victim. Because of your actions the police will now be informed that both you and he are actively trying to gain entry into people's houses dishonestly. If I hear from you again I will also contact the local paper to try to make sure that anyone else that he tries to cheat like this knows what you are up to."

This would be a real mistake

MaryNB · 31 January 2022 at 2:26PM

Reginald74 said:

Chris_English said:

Dear Mr X's mother.

Your son, the habitual criminal, lied about his criminal pst to try to cheat his way into my house, knowing that this would give him access to a woman's home that he woudl never be able to get if you had brought him up to be honest.

Clearly in your family this is viewed as normal, but you ought to know that in normal families violent criminals don't have their mothers trying to find them access to their next victim. Because of your actions the police will now be informed that both you and he are actively trying to gain entry into people's houses dishonestly. If I hear from you again I will also contact the local paper to try to make sure that anyone else that he tries to cheat like this knows what you are up to."

This would be a real mistake

Based on what the OP said about the lodger's mother I can't see that going down well at all or resolving anything. Just more fuel on the fire.

theoretica · 31 January 2022 at 2:27PM

TBagpuss said:

Contract was conditional on the DBS checks being completed and not revealing anything, this was clear from the outset

As a matter of detail, probably don't say a 'clean' check/not revealing 'anything' - but something like 'satisfactory'. Organisations which require checks are supposed to have a more nuanced response than a blanket no if something comes up.

newsgroupmonkey_ · 31 January 2022 at 3:26PM

saajan_12 said:

Ignoring some of the nonsense on illegal CRB checks .....

There's a bit here I'm going to quote....

Total value of the claim is £4563 that he's asking for within 14 days, otherwise he's filing the claim and will add a further £205 filing fee and accrue interest on the balance being sought at £1 daily for each day after the filing, until a settlement is reached.

There appear to be lots of statutory costs (like interest) going on here which are only valid in business-to-business cases.

This is an individual claiming against another individual.

https://helix-law.co.uk/what-costs-can-be-recovered-on-the-small-claims-track/

GDB2222 · 31 January 2022 at 5:22PM

saajan_12 said:

4) Court costs: While there is a reasonable argument for £0 owed, this is not iron clad as above, and court can be unpredictable. If the judge finds the lodger's claim has merit and you ignored attempts to resolve before court, then more likely to award courts costs against you, vs if you responded to an LBA but the lodger prematurely went to court. So personally I would respond briefly.

Agreed. This will be a small claim, heard by a district judge. They tend to dispense slightly rough and ready justice, and they have considerable discretion about awarding costs.

If the OP ignores the LBA, he's at risk of having the court fees awarded against him. People have mentioned the £205 MCOL issue fee, but there's also the £346 hearing fee. So, the OP could be ordered to pay £500+ costs because he ignores the LBA, even though he more or less wins the case.

Loads of people have advised ignoring the LBA, but it's really, really dreadful advice. Essentially, it's a gamble. On the plus side, you save ten minutes responding to the LBA. On the minus side, there's the chance (probably quite small) that the lodger issues proceedings and the judge awards costs against the OP of really quite a lot of money.